Student perceptions of the utility of the Pharmacy Curriculum Outcomes Assessment.

INTRODUCTION: This study assessed student perceptions, preparation, and result use strategies of the Pharmacy Curriculum Outcomes Assessment (PCOA). Secondarily, it studied the effect of schools/colleges of pharmacy (S/COP) PCOA management on student perceptions. METHODS: A 52-item electronic questionnaire assessed PCOA preparation of final year students, review/use of results, remediation participation, self-reported motivation, and perceptions of the exam's ability to measure PCOA blueprint areas and North American Pharmacy Licensure Examination (NAPLEX)/advanced pharmacy practice experience (APPE) readiness. Programs were given a questionnaire to determine their PCOA practices. RESULTS: The student survey was completed by 341 students (40% response rate). Students prepared very little for the PCOA and few reported participation in PCOA-based remediation (6%). Students perceived the PCOA to measure the four domains moderately well, although administrative sciences were significantly lower. Students reported less confidence in the exam's ability to measure APPE/NAPLEX-readiness. Although few used the PCOA to guide their NAPLEX preparation (18%), they were more likely to do so than for APPEs (4%). Students reported a higher perceived increase in motivation if PCOA results were connected to APPE placement, remediation, and progression as opposed to prizes, rewards, or other recognitions. CONCLUSION: This is the first multi-institutional study to review student perceptions about the PCOA. These data can be used along with other PCOA data to help schools develop incentive, remediation, and examination administration procedures depending on the programs desired use for the PCOA exam.

National Trends in the Adoption of Pharmacy Curriculum Outcomes Assessment for Student Assessment and Remediation.

Objective. To determine and describe the current uses of the Pharmacy Curriculum Outcomes Assessment (PCOA) by US schools and colleges of pharmacy. Methods. Assessment professionals from 135 US schools and colleges of pharmacy were invited to complete a 38-item electronic survey. Survey items were designed to investigate common uses of the PCOA, cut points, and "stakes" assigned to the PCOA, identification of at-risk students, and remediation approaches. Results. The school response rate was 68%. The most common uses of the PCOA included curricular assessment (76%), individual student performance assessment (74%), and cohort performance assessment (71%). The PCOA was most frequently administered to third-year pharmacy (P3) students. The approach for assigning "stakes" to PCOA performance varied among programs depending on the student's professional year in the curriculum. Programs used a variety of approaches to establish the benchmark (or cut point) for PCOA performance. Remediation for at risk students was required by less than 25% of programs. Remediation was most commonly required for P3 students (22%). Conclusion. Survey results indicate wide variability between programs regarding PCOA cut points (benchmarks), stakes, and remediation approaches. In the future, it will be important for pharmacy educators to identify and study best practices for use of PCOA within student assessment and remediation plans.

Surveying the current landscape of assessment structures and resources in US schools and colleges of pharmacy.

INTRODUCTION: Expectations for assessment in higher education have increased in recent decades, prompting institutions to invest additional resources in this area. This study aimed to determine the resources, structure, and perception of assessment resources in United States schools and colleges of pharmacy (S/COPs). METHODS: Assessment personnel in S/COPs were surveyed electronically. Information collected included S/COP demographics, composition of assessment positions, experience and training of assessment personnel, and structure and responsibilities of committees engaged in assessment. Respondents' perception of their S/COPs having sufficient assessment personnel, recent changes in assessment, and the factors that prompted assessment changes were also surveyed. RESULTS: Respondents included individuals from 113 S/COPs (84% response rate). Most S/COPs had 1-2 assessment positions and 1-2 assessment-related committees. The most common assessment position titles were assistant/associate dean, director, coordinator/specialist, and administrative assistant. Dean-level administrators typically had worked in assessment the longest, whereas directors were more likely to have formal assessment training. Most respondents (75%) agreed they had sufficient assessment personnel to meet the 2007 Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education Standards. Nearly two-thirds of respondents agreed they had sufficient personnel to meet the 2016 Standards and support their current assessment plan/process. Most S/COPs had a formal assessment committee (93%) and an average of two committees overseeing assessment. CONCLUSION: Most S/COPs reported having sufficient resources to support assessment activities. Although there were some consistent themes, there does not appear to be a single model for structuring assessment resources or committees. Effectiveness of various assessment structures represents an area for future research.

Factors associated with cultures of assessment at US schools and colleges of pharmacy.

INTRODUCTION: Pharmacy education has standards for assessment that must be met, prompting many programs to develop cultures of assessment. This study assesses the extent to which assessment personnel perceive that a culture of assessment has been established within their schools/colleges of pharmacy (S/COPs) and determines whether a relationship exists between assessment structure and the perceived strength of the culture of assessment. METHODS: An electronic survey was administered to assessment personnel at 134 S/COPs. Respondents were asked about changes within the past five years pertaining to assessment personnel/committees and factors prompting these changes. They were also asked to rate items related to support for institutional assessment (SIA scale) and faculty engagement with assessment (FEA scale). The reliability of each scale was estimated using Cronbach alpha and bivariate correlations were conducted to estimate the relationships among the two scales and other survey items. RESULTS: The S/COP response rate was 84% (113/134). Most (58%) noted the formation or re-structuring of the assessment office, with 26% creating one or more new assessment positions. The most common source of change was new accreditation standards (55%) followed by a new leadership position created in assessment (40%). Cronbach alpha for the SIA scale was 0.79 and 0.84 for the FEA scale. Program size was strongly negatively correlated with school age (rs = -0.58) and the FEA scale (r = -0.21). CONCLUSIONS: There was a strong relationship between SIA and FEA. Future studies are warranted to determine the interdependency of support for assessment and faculty engagement with assessment.